MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Choice Reaction Time and Adequacy of Dialysis: A New Application of an Old Method

2003· article· en· W1975968813 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suhail Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisDialysisPeritoneal dialysisCreatinineRenal functionUrologyKidney diseaseInternal medicineEnd stage renal diseaseSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Choice Reaction Time (CRT) is the time it takes for a subject to accurately respond to a flashing panel of lights. The CRT has been used to assess the quality of dialysis in hemodialysis patients and to assess the neurological impairments in patients with Parkinson's disease. METHODS: Three groups of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on three different renal replacement therapies were tested using CRT: intermittent peritoneal dialysis (IPD, n = 11), thrice weekly hemodialysis (HD, n = 22), and well-functioning kidney transplant (Tx, n = 6). A group of volunteers with normal renal function (NL, n = 12) was also tested. RESULTS: The CRT was significantly longer in IPD patients (618 +/- 89 ms) than observed in the other three groups (p < 0.0001). CRT in HD patients was 461 +/- 50 ms, which was significantly longer than in Tx patients (396 +/- 25 ms, p = 0.05). However, the CRT in the Tx patients was no different from the NL (382 +/- 22, p = 0.32). There was a strong negative correlation between CRT and weekly creatinine clearance in the IPD group (r =- .96) and between the dialysis index and CRT in HD (r =- 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: CRT may be a useful tool in assessing the adequacy of dialysis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis International→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→